Also known as: rationality reviews · rational basis review
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A deferential standard of judicial review under which a law is upheld if it bears a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest.
Ricardo Rojas, a physically fit 51-year-old officer with the city police department, challenges a rule forcing retirement at age 50. The city defends the cutoff as a means to maintain overall workforce capability without individualized fitness testing. The court upholds the rule because the age limit is rationally connected to the legitimate goal of ensuring a capable force.
Raphael Rivera, a lawyer from a majority-Muslim country, sues after an executive order blocks his visa on national-security grounds. The order cites vetting concerns and applies to several nations. The court sustains the order because the stated security purpose is legitimate and the restriction is rationally related to it.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Robert Rivera is prosecuted under a federal statute banning firearms near schools. He argues Congress lacked power to enact the ban. The court rejects rationality review for the commerce-power claim and invalidates the statute.
Redwood Bank finances a proposed group home for adults with intellectual disabilities in the City of Cleburne. The city denies the permit citing neighbor concerns about safety. The court reviews the denial under rationality review and finds the city's stated interests insufficient to justify the classification.
Riley Rivera, a state university employee over age 40, sues the state for age discrimination under federal law. The state asserts Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court holds that Congress lacked power under Section 5 to abrogate immunity because age classifications receive only rationality review and the remedy was not congruent and proportional.
Rina Rahman, a state employee with a disability, sues the state for money damages under Title I of the ADA. The state claims sovereign immunity. The court rules that Congress exceeded its Section 5 authority because the statute reached much conduct valid under rationality review and lacked a sufficient pattern of irrational state discrimination.
Rationality review applies to classifications that neither burden a fundamental right nor target a suspect or quasi-suspect class. Age, disability, and most economic distinctions receive this standard. The government need only show a rational relationship to a legitimate interest.
Supporting sources
The standard is highly deferential. A law survives if any plausible legitimate purpose exists, even if underinclusive or overinclusive. Courts rarely invalidate measures under this review absent evidence of animus or an illegitimate purpose.
Supporting sources
Yes. When a classification appears driven by animus or lacks any legitimate purpose, courts may invalidate it even under rationality review. Examples include certain zoning decisions or laws resting solely on moral disapproval of private conduct.
Supporting sources
…(1996); Nordlinger v. Hahn , 505 U. S. 1, 11-12 (1992). Laws such as economic or tax legislation that are scrutinized under rational basis review normally pass constitutional muster, since "the Constitution presumes that even improvident decisions will eventually be rectified by the democratic processes." Cleburne v. Cleburne Living…